Really? Now they want to come on your property with drugs dogs?

[Vicki]

Unbelievable....

http://www.alternet.org/story/15369...urt_decides?akid=8117.222942.kJvisH&rd=1&t=22


Should Drug Dogs be Allowed to Sniff Around Outside Your Home? Florida Supreme Court Decides

The court will consider the case of Joelis Jardines, who was arrested after a Florida police officer's drug dog sniffed his front door and alerted to the odor of marijuana.

January 9, 2012

The US Supreme Court said Friday it would decide whether having a drug dog sniff at the door of a private residence violates the Fourth Amendment's proscription against warrantless searches. The court agreed to hear an appeal from the state of Florida in a case where the Florida Supreme Court ruled that such searches were indeed unconstitutional.

The case is Florida v. Jardines, which began with the arrest and conviction of Joelis Jardines for marijuana trafficking and electricity theft after a Florida police officer's drug dog sniffed at Jardines' front door and alerted to the odor of marijuana, Jardines and his attorney challenged the search, claiming the dog sniff was an unconstitutional intrusion into his home. The trial judge agreed, throwing out the evidence, but an appeals court reversed the lower court decision. In April, in a split decision, the state Supreme Court reversed the appeals court, siding with the trial judge.

What the high court decides will be watched with great interest by law enforcement, which sees drug-sniffing dogs as an invaluable tool in its fight to suppress drug use and the drug trade. Eighteen states had joined with Florida in urging the court to take up the case. They argued that the state court decision went against legal precedent and threatened a valuable and widely-used tactic.

This will be only the latest legal tussle over whether the use of dogs to find drugs, explosives and other illegal or dangerous substances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. In previous cases, the Supreme Court has upheld the use of drug-sniffing dogs during traffic stops, at airport luggage inspections, and for shipped packages in transit.

This case is different because it involves a private residence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that a residence is entitled to greater privacy than cars on a highway, luggage at an airport, or a package in transit. The court used that reasoning in a 2001 case involving the use of thermal imaging to detect heat from a marijuana grow operation in a home, ruling that the scan constituted a search requiring either a search warrant or probable cause.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in April and render a decision by the end of June.

 

[Carbon]

That's the risk you run. I'd say that if the dog could smell it from the sidewalk (public property), then that could be probable cause. A dog sniffing at the door would assume for most people that the dog is on that person's property, in which case I'd say that is trespassing and the resident should be protected.

 

[stroh]

just the fact that handlers can make their dogs alert even if there is no marijuana odors present makes this completely absurd, every citizen should be entitled to the the complete safety and privacy of their home and property.

 

[Vicki]

A dog sniffing at the door would assume for most people that the dog is on that person's property, in which case I'd say that is trespassing and the resident should be protected.

That's exactly what they want to do. Come on your property, to your front door so the dog can sniff. I think that is complete B.S.

 

[AGBeer]

That's the risk you run. I'd say that if the dog could smell it from the sidewalk (public property), then that could be probable cause. A dog sniffing at the door would assume for most people that the dog is on that person's property, in which case I'd say that is trespassing and the resident should be protected.

Well then we are fucked if this passes as dogs smell at a mollecular level. I have heard the stories of "A dog finding a roach in the ashtray from a lineup of cars over 25 yards away"

If this passes, then probable cause goes out the window. (Literally)

 

[Vicki]

If this passes, then probable cause goes out the window. (Literally)

Exactly! Complete B.S.

 

[Carbon]

I agree that the implications of this would be far reaching and scary, but I have faith that the supreme court will uphold the original decision to throw this out.

 

[t-dub]

I don't think the court will allow the police on to your private property for this purpose since it would violate your right to unreasonable search. However, what about implied or assumed privacy by the homeowner? I know that if you put a closure on your trash bags it implies that you expect privacy and even though its possible to search your trash, they can't, or use the results of that search in court, since you sealed it, implying, that you expect privacy. Reconstructing shredded documents from people's recycle also falls under this category I think. Can't we say someone expected privacy for their odors inside their house, even though they escaped to the point that a dog could smell from the sidewalk?

t-dub

 

[Vicki]

Can't we say someone expected privacy for their odors inside their house, even though they escaped to the point that a dog could smell from the sidewalk?

t-dub

You would think. But, we are losing rights left and right, so it scares me that it might actually pass.